Wallet Logo

BiKi App

latest release: 4.9.1 ( 21st July 2021 ) last analysed  15th September 2021 Custodial: The provider holds the keys 
1.9 ★★★★★
739 ratings
50 thousand
13th May 2019

Jump to verdict 

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please help us spread the word discussing the risks of centralized custodians with BiKi App  via their Twitter!

Do your own research!

Try out searching for "lost bitcoins", "stole my money" or "scammers" together with the wallet's name, even if you think the wallet is generally trustworthy. For all the bigger wallets you will find accusations. Make sure you understand why they were made and if you are comfortable with the provider's reaction.

If you find something we should include, you can create an issue or edit this analysis yourself and create a merge request for your changes.

The Analysis 

From its Google Play Description:

We have a strong technical team and operation team, dedicated to building the safest, most stable and efficient digital asset trading platform for global users.
Multiple cryptocurrencies,LTC/BTC、ETH/BTC、BCH/BTC、ETC/BTC、BTC/USDT、LTC/USDT、ETH/ USDT、BCH/ USDT、ETC/ USDT

At the interim, it would appear that this service is a centralized exchange.

In Section 3.4 of its User Service Agreement

Where the Bitcoins you uploaded prior to service suspension or termination have not been traded, BiKi shall have the right to delete the information in connection with such item upon service suspension or termination. Where any sales and purchase contract entered into with other members prior to such service suspension or termination, and the contract is not executed, BiKi shall have the right to delete such contract and the information in connection with Bitcoins trade thereon.

Its User Service Agreement is distinct from its Leverage Trading Agreement

In Section 4.2 of its Leverage Trading Agreement

Policy Risks: Digital asset transactions may be suspended or prohibited at any time due to the formulation or modification of applicable laws, rules and regulations for digital assets in various jurisdictions.

It has a tutorial on depositing digital assets

We emailed support to verify our findings.

All evidences point to a custodial service.

(dg)

Verdict Explained

As the provider of this product holds the keys, verifiability of the product is not relevant to the security of the funds!

As part of our Methodology, we ask:

Is the product self-custodial? If not, we tag it Custodial! 

A custodial service is a service where the funds are held by a third party like the provider. The custodial service can at any point steal all the funds of all the users at their discretion. Our investigations stop there.

Some services might claim their setup is super secure, that they don’t actually have access to the funds, or that the access is shared between multiple parties. For our evaluation of it being a wallet, these details are irrelevant. They might be a trustworthy Bitcoin bank and they might be a better fit for certain users than being your own bank but our investigation still stops there as we are only interested in wallets.

Products that claim to be non-custodial but feature custodial accounts without very clearly marking those as custodial are also considered “custodial” as a whole to avoid misguiding users that follow our assessment.

This verdict means that the provider might or might not publish source code and maybe it is even possible to reproduce the build from the source code but as it is custodial, the provider already has control over the funds, so it is not a wallet where you would be in exclusive control of your funds.

We have to acknowledge that a huge majority of Bitcoiners are currently using custodial Bitcoin banks. If you do, please:

  • Do your own research if the provider is trust-worthy!
  • Check if you know at least enough about them so you can sue them when you have to!
  • Check if the provider is under a jurisdiction that will allow them to release your funds when you need them?
  • Check if the provider is taking security measures proportional to the amount of funds secured? If they have a million users and don’t use cold storage, that hot wallet is a million times more valuable for hackers to attack. A million times more effort will be taken by hackers to infiltrate their security systems.
The product cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The product might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.